1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a limited partnership company that runs a country, a travel agency in and out of Korea, a service bus lease and a brokerage business.

B. The Plaintiff left a vehicle to the Defendant and engaged in transportation business, and C et al., a representative member of the Defendant, transferred his/her share to the Defendant to the Plaintiff et al. on January 4, 2010, and the Plaintiff became a limited partner of the Defendant.

C. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff asserted to withdraw from the Defendant, the Defendant has to refund the Plaintiff’s share. The value of the Plaintiff’s share shall be assessed as KRW 20 million on the Defendant’s entire certificate of registered matters.

Therefore, the defendant must return to the plaintiff KRW 20 million.

3. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a non-litigation agreement, as to the defense prior to the merits of this case.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a letter of resignation on April 9, 2013, stating that the plaintiff shall resign from the defendant's director office and shall give up all rights and responsibilities.

However, in light of the fact that the above statement of resignation does not contain the content that it is impossible to file a lawsuit under the language of the above statement of resignation, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a special agreement to file a lawsuit only by the above fact of recognition,

The defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

4. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the above basic facts as to the merits and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 1 by itself is equivalent to KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s share value to be refunded by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff.